The Commerce Department on June 30 reversed its finding that the Moroccan government's tax fine and penalty reduction program is de facto specific, slightly lowering respondent OCP's countervailing duty rate. Commerce said in light of the Court of International Trade's decision rejecting its de facto specificity analysis, it's finding, under respectful protest, that the program isn't de facto specific (The Mosaic Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00246).

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California erred in finding that the Court of International Trade has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the State of California's lawsuit against the legality of the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, California argued in its opening brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Among other things, California argued that its suit "arises out of" IEEPA, the substantive law "giving rise to the claims," and not President Donald Trump's executive orders implementing the tariffs, as the district court held (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, 9th Cir. # 25-3493).

The Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force failed to undertake a transparent process in considering exporter Ninestar's application for delisting from the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, Ninestar told the Court of International Trade on June 26. Ninestar said FLETF's process was neither "fair, transparent," nor "productive," and led the task force to ignore its obligations and the company's rights under the Administrative Procedure Act (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

The U.S. filed its opening brief on June 27 in the appeal on the legality of the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, arguing that the district court got the jurisdiction and merits questions wrong. The government said the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia took a "nonsensical" view of the Court of International Trade's jurisdiction and that, contrary to the court's ruling, IEEPA does confer tariff-setting authority (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).

The Supreme Court's recent decision to eliminate nationwide injunctions won't impact the Court of International Trade, attorneys told us. The trade court is a court of national jurisdiction and will keep the right to issue nationwide injunctions for issues within its jurisdiction, the attorneys said.

The Court of International Trade on June 26 heard oral argument in a suit from U.S. solar cell maker Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy against the Biden administration's decision to pause antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from four Southeast Asian countries. Judge Timothy Reif heard from DOJ, the plaintiffs and counsel for various solar cell importers and exporters on whether Auxin waited too long to file suit and the propriety of applying retroactive relief, given that the affected importers would be subject to massive antidumping and countervailing duties without a chance for review (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).

A Thai wheel exporter and three importers filed their opening bid at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit challenge a trade court ruling that their products, wheels made with some Chinese-origin components, originated from China rather than Thailand (Asia Wheel Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1689).

The Court of International Trade called on future litigants to address the "various problems of interpretation" posed by the Commerce Department's subassemblies provision in its antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders. In a pair of decisions issued June 25, Judge Timothy Stanceu said the current construction of the provision can lead to "unreasonable, and even absurd, results."

Respondent Carbon Activated Tianjin asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 23 to rehear its antidumping duty case, arguing that a three-judge panel committed "legal error" by affirming the Commerce Department's selection of the surrogate value for carbonized material. Carbon Activated said the panel also erred in "misapprehending key distinctions between the administrative record" of the 2018-19 AD review on Chinese activated carbon and the records of prior reviews (Carbon Activated Tianjin v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2135).

​​​​​​Importers, led by Simplified, asked the Court of International Trade on June 24 to reconsider its decision to stay the company's suit against the tariffs imposed on China under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Simplified said the stay order prevents it from raising its argument that the IEEPA suit actually belongs in a U.S. district court, and not CIT, while the government hasn't shown the "hardship necessary to justify a stay," the brief said (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00096).